ALINDRA DEBBARMA Vs. KASOM KOLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 25.02.2008 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in TS(MAC) 230 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that since the insurance company was not liable, the claim petition was not maintainable.

(2.) To say the least, the award of the learned Tribunal shows that the Tribunal was not even aware of the basic principles of law. A claim petition had been filed by the claimant and the liability to pay the claim initially will be of the driver of the vehicle because he is the tortfeasor or the wrong doer. The owner of the vehicle becomes liable to pay the compensation by applying the principle of vicarious liability whereby the employer is liable for the wrongs committed by his employee. The liability of the insurance company is a liability of indemnity. The insurance company on receipt of premium agrees to indemnify the insured against certain liabilities. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act) makes it compulsory for every owner of a vehicle to take out a policy of insurance which must cover the liabilities in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is not debarred from giving wider coverage than that which is required under the Act. The owner of a vehicle to meet the requirements of law may pay the minimum amount of premium and take out a policy which only covers liability as required to be covered under Section 147 of the Act. However, nothing debars the owner and the insurance company from entering into a wider contract and on payment of more premium the insurance company may give extra coverage. The first policy is known as an 'act policy' whereas the other policies are known as package or comprehensive policies. However, only the term package or comprehensive is not sufficient to decide what is the coverage under the policy That will have to be decided by seeing the terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) At the outset, I may notice that the learned Tribunal was totally wrong in rejecting the claim petition only on the ground that there was no insurance cover for pillion riders. Assuming for the sake of argument that the insurance policy did not cover any liability in respect of pillion riders then also the Tribunal had to decide the issue of negligence and quantum and if it was held that the accident had occurred due to negligence of driver of the vehicle, both the driver and the owner should have been held liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal just used a short cut and dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the liability under the insurance company was not covered.